ABSTRACT
This comment builds on the methodological reflections presented in the joint article by Brandon and Bosma in this issue. It examines three ‘demarcation problems’ that beset all the articles presented in this issue: where to draw the line between costs and benefits (for whom, at what stage in the process of reaping the gains of the forced labour of the enslaved, and in what link of the global commodity chain?); how to meaningfully translate benefits drawn from imperial and trans-imperial economic activities to a national accounting framework; and how to account for revenues when these were redistributed through schemes of profit sharing and complicated financial arrangements. Thinking through such seemingly technical problems can bring us closer to essential questions concerning the political economy of slavery. Many of the ‘new historians’ of capitalism and slavery treat national accounting as essentially hostile terrain. However, when not approached as an abstract numbers game, it can be a valuable tool for clarifying the stakes of the many different actors whose business revolved around the commodified lives of the enslaved, help to understand their interrelations and highlight their involvement in organising new relations of exchange, production and power.
